The environment may not be as fashionable an issue now as it was when David Cameron attached a wind turbine to his house. But I believe tackling climate change is the most important thing I can do in politics for the long-term future of my kids and their generation.

I will not leave those principles behind at the door to Downing Street. That is the choice the country will face at the next election: a Conservative government that … makes Britain a laggard on climate change, or a Labour government that leads.

So there you have it. By conflating ‘the environment’ with ‘global warming’, Ed Miliband hopes to hoodwink the British public into supporting his rich mates in their quest to rob us into poverty and ruin the country’s economy with the international wealth redistribution scheme which masquerades as ‘climate action’.

Fellow traveller Ed Davey at DECC has been doing his bit over the last five years. The cost of his planned measures to ‘decarbonise’ will increase the money required to continue the kamikaze energy policy from £2.3Billion to over £9Billion by 2020. You can be sure Ed won’t be trying to control those spiralling costs if we give him the reins of power in the UK.

After all, it was Ed Miliband as energy minister under Gordon ‘Bigoted flat Earther’ Brown, who brought in the economic suicide note known as the Climate Change Act, which legally commits Britain to wrecking it economy by 2050.

Keep calm and vote UKIP – the only party with a coherent energy policy.

Who is funding these politicians is the investigative journalism question of the last 15-20 years? Those names ought to be as front-and-center as the politicians’ names, or the public is left to emotional perception. Who are their backers and which “AGW” payroll are they on? Otherwise “the appearance of ‘caring’ for Earth” is permitted to resonate rather than malignant, narcissistic self-interest for (princely) pay.

Why Antarctica will soon be the only place to live – literally
By Geoffrey Lean, Environment Editor
Sunday, 2 May 2004

Antarctica is likely to be the world’s only habitable continent by the end of this century if global warming remains unchecked, the Government’s chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, said last week.

He said the Earth was entering the “first hot period” for 60 million years, when there was no ice on the planet and “the rest of the globe could not sustain human life”. The warning – one of the starkest delivered by a top scientist – comes as ministers decide next week whether to weaken measures to cut the pollution that causes climate change, even though Tony Blair last week described the situation as “very, very critical indeed”.

The Prime Minister – who was launching a new alliance of governments, businesses and pressure groups to tackle global warming – added that he could not think of “any bigger long-term question facing the world community”.

Yet the Government is considering relaxing limits on emissions by industry under an EU scheme on Tuesday.

Sir David said that levels of carbon dioxide in the atmosphere – the main “green- house gas” causing climate change – were already 50 per cent higher than at any time in the past 420,000 years. The last time they were at this level – 379 parts per million – was 60 million years ago during a rapid period of global warming, he said. Levels soared to 1,000 parts per million, causing a massive reduction of life.

“No ice was left on Earth. Antarctica was the best place for mammals to live, and the rest of the world would not sustain human life,” he said.

Sir David warned that if the world did not curb its burning of fossil fuels “we will reach that level by 2100”.

‘Antarctica is likely to be the world’s only habitable continent by the end of this century if global warming remains unchecked, the Government’s chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, said last week.’

Christopher Booker’s column in todays Sunday Telegraph has an interesting article titled “Was this the worst political blunder in our history?”. He makes some pertinent points about Gordon Brown and his economic advisor Ed Balls and the disastrous state of our present economy.

Reblogged this on Wolsten and commented:
The Labour party must be desperate to use argument. On the one hand they are going to cap energy prices but on the other support renewable subsidies. If they can’t see how insane that is then either they are fools or they are treating the electorate like fools.

I don’t agree with voting UKIP myself but I am beginning to appreciate way so many can.

A slight reduction in the massive increase in coal use by China is a long way from a decrease in total coal use. Economic slow down and an increase in efficiency of coal use is the main cause of the decreased coal use world wide.
Soon the Ecoloons will be claiming that their forced reductions of energy production has caused the halt in Global Warming! pg

For a supposed scientist King was very free with made-up facts. Fond of claiming things now the same as X million years ago, regardless.
Within the last 50 million years the CO2 level has been even higher than 1000-1100 ppm. which was the estimated level when many real scientists estimate that the Antarctic ice cap formed. It is not a ‘consensus’ as other scientists feel that the permanent ice cap didn’t form until the CO2 level dropped to 550 ppm.
Nor did the pratKing ever calculate how much heat would be required to melt that mass of ice.

Perhaps UKIP should ask when Sir David, Geoffrey Lean, the 3 Eds (Davey, Balls, Millibrain), and a few others are going to leave for the Antarctic, and why they haven’t left already?

Ed Miliband: “I believe tackling climate change is the most important thing I can do in politics”

As “tackling climate change” is obviously unimportant, he apparently believes he could do nothing of any importance in politics. It is incredibly hard to fashion a more convincing agenda for a would-be prime minister.

Brainy bloke that miliband fellow, as making the 9th most important issue amongst the people the Labour parties single most important issue is obviously a cunning electoral strategy destined to propel Ed and Labour into no. 10. /sarc

Indeed Ed Miliband has set out his stall at last.
Thankfully he’s sticking to the tried and tested methods of gut instinct, and not only the opinions from left-wing scholars, think tanks, pollsters, and other far left socialist social science researchers. No not for him, oh no. He has his own ideas, and his own team to help him do the tough thinking, and they know that Britain needs all the wind energy it can muster to keep the party relavent and not just flapping on a party line.
So more power to him I say, as he and his team’s ideas need more exposure, so that people can see it for all it’s worth. Yes, Ed Miliband and the party that is truely full of wind while trying to blow smoke up your arse.

Never trust a posh pontificating pollie who refers to children as “kids”.
Also he did not define exactly what climate status he wants the world to be fixed at. If certain countries can establish an unchanging climate that suits them certain other countries will not be happy. Lawyers will flourish because weather caused disasters will no longer be “acts of God”,but will be the fault of some government organisation with lots of money. Their only defence will be to deny that they can control the climate.

Miliband E. is a weapons’-grade pillock. There is zero risk of thermal runaway of the Earth because that argument, developed from 1960 by Sagan and Pollock for Venus, is based on Sagan’s 4 basic mistakes in physics.

It is trivial to prove that if the Earth was warmed by presently 157.5 W/m^2 ‘Clear sky Atmospheric Greenhouse Factor’ GHG-absorbed surface IR as is claimed by the IPCC models, the mean local air temperature would have to be ~16 K lower than the mean surface temperature.

As it is patently obvious that the local atmosphere is very near to surface temperature, the reasons being shown in Fig. 2.5 of Houghton’s 1977 ‘Physics of Atmospheres’, wind and lapse rate convection, there is no Enhanced GHE.

Delve further into the real physics and there is no non-enhanced GHE either; no CO2-AGW. The atmosphere in its present form, self regulates.

The hot-house Earth, e.g. the Devonian, was 10 K higher than now. That is the upper limit of the GHE from mostly water and 12x present CO2, in the absence of the present water cycle. There is zilch, nada, zero possibility of a new Venus.

So, how do the IPCC get away with it? They add to real 238.5 W/m^2 solar SW warming imaginary 333 W/m^2 ‘back radiation’, to confuse ‘Radiant Emittance’ with real energy.

The result is far too high. In 1981 the Hansen group claimed with no evidence that OLR comes from a single -18 deg C zone, radiating over 360 degrees.

The 238.5 W/m^2 purportedly radiating downwards is treated as a negative heating in the Sagan ‘2-stream approximation’, a blatant ‘boundary condition’ error.

238.5 + 333 – 238.5 = 333. The ‘bait and switch’.

333 – 238.5 = 94.5; 40% increase in energy over reality.

94.5 + 63 real net surface IR (2009 ‘Energy Budget’) = 157.5.

The real finesse was ‘proving’ ‘violent weather’. They do this by using ~35% higher than reality low level cloud albedo in hind-casting. This makes the sunlit third of the oceans twice as warm above the mean temperature as the cooler underside of clouds is below it whilst the average matches past data Exponential evaporation gives the imaginary ‘hot-spot’.

“Antarctica is likely to be the world’s only habitable continent by the end of this century if global warming remains unchecked, the Government’s chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, said last week.”

Why have the men in white suits failed to round up this nutjob? It must be the British restraint that protects idiots who have impressive sounding titles.

“I start from this premise: I believe in a more equal society. I believe Britain is too unequal and we need to change it.
And I believe that the environment and tackling climate change is an essential part of that. Why? Because it is the poorest people on the planet, and indeed the poorest people at home, who will suffer the effects of climate change. And more, to actually create a more equal society you do it through tackling climate change and environmental care.
That is the first lesson I want to suggest to you. I believe more strongly now than I did when I was Climate Change Secretary that you cannot divorce an environmental strategy from an economic strategy. Both of these things have to go hand-in-hand.”

I’m preserving the text from Ed’s page, which will no doubt vanish in due course, and web-citation can’t handle the coding…http://tinyurl.com/m5j59ff

Here’s what I believe
People sometimes say to me politicians are all the same. That couldn’t be further from the truth. So let me explain what I stand for, in the simplest terms.

For me, everything starts with this: our country is currently set up only to work for a privileged few at the top. It’s time to level the playing field so it works for us all.
When David Cameron talks about the economic recovery, most people in Britain are left wondering why they aren’t feeling its benefits. They want to know why, when they work so hard, their living standards are falling; why, when they make a decent living, they can’t afford to buy a house; and why, against the experience of every generation before us, their kids are worse off than they are.

Or let me put it another way: people are asking why we have zero-hours contracts while some at the top seem to get away with paying zero tax. The same rigged system that lets most people down allows a privileged few to grow ever more wealthy.

This widening inequality is no accident; it is the direct result of the Tories’ values and their beliefs about how Britain should be run.

They believe that insecurity is the way you make people work harder.
They think low pay is the way we should compete in the world.
They trust that markets will always get the right outcome.
They believe the only answer for our public services is to hand them over to private firms — our NHS included.
These ideas failed us in the past and they are failing us now.

Underpinning these ideas is a set of values I abhor: the view that the success of the country depends on a few at the top, and that the rest of us should be content to sit patiently and wait for some scraps to fall from their table.
My own values could not be more different from those of this government.

I believe it’s essential that people are rewarded fairly for their hard work — and that we cannot live in a country where chief executives get pay rises 10, 20, 30 times as large as their workers, year on year on year.
I believe that each generation should do better than the last.
I believe that decent public services are the foundation of who we are as a country — and that the NHS is the embodiment of that.
I believe that no vested interest — no bank or energy company or any other rich or powerful group or person — should be allowed to take advantage of the rest of us.
Above all I believe that Britain only succeeds when working people succeed.
Those are my values. They’re why I want to be your prime minister, and why I believe our country needs a Labour government.

When you’re deciding whether or not to get involved, remember what we’re fighting for:

Energy bills frozen until 2017
An £8 minimum wage
The end of exploitative zero-hours contracts
Guaranteed jobs for young people
200,000 more homes built a year
The end of the bedroom tax
Reform of our banks so they work for our businesses once again
A cut in business rates to help small businesses
Apprenticeships alongside every government contract
An end to recruitment agencies only hiring from abroad
The repeal of the Health and Social Care Act
Tens of thousands more doctors, nurses, midwives and care workers
Together, these measures add up to a country that starts to work for the majority again.

Millions of people in this country are resting their hopes on us fighting for a fairer, better Britain in six months’ time, and I will not let them down.

The future of our country is in our hands.

In six months a Labour government can begin the business of changing our country for the better. Help us get there

“Antarctica is likely to be the world’s only habitable continent by the end of this century if global warming remains unchecked, the Government’s chief scientist, Professor Sir David King, said last week.”

That was the chief scientist. As we say in Scandinavia Uff da!

Not sure why warming is such a bad thing, the Medieval Warm Period was very prosperous. An interesting Swedish study was done you might find informative. It’s in English.

“In fact, Ed’s dumb pledge means consumers will pay more money for fuel than if he’d kept his gob shut.”

Governments tends to always get in the way of prosperity.

I think one reason the Yanks are paying so much less now for gas ( under $3.00 ) they are fracking. But, the middle east has yet to adjust their prices and I think for good reason. By not raising costs its their attempt to smother the need for fracking.

Is that the same ‘global warming’ that hasn’t done anything for over a decade?
Of course moribund Ed and nutty professor King never look at inconvenient data or they might have to stop making foolish climate utterances.

Given that the price of oil has dropped substantially from various peaks (love that peak oil shit , where has that gone?) to around, let us say $65/barrel currently, When then can perhaps the people see the effect of that huge reduction in petrol prices? Of course that cannot happen because Governments are locked in to tax receipts and those receipts must be maintained to punish the flagrant abuse of fossil energy and to maintain political lifestyles.
Has anybody done a correlation between oil prices and petrol prices over the last 10 years ?
It would be interesting.

It makes sense to the Government ,that is true.
Would less Government be less expensive? Somebody needs to explore that possibility!!
Oh wait!! Nigel Farage.
Unfortunately I do not have a vote in the UK , but the more I see of Nigel Farage on Utube , the more impressed I am .